Allahabad High Court
NEERAJversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the applicant.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Neeraj, who was arrested in a case registered as Crime No. 137 of 2026 under Sections 137(2), 65(1) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant’s counsel argued that the alleged victim, a 16‑year‑old girl, was a consenting party and that the ossification test used to determine her age could have a margin of error of up to two years, making her effectively an adult. The counsel also highlighted the applicant’s clean criminal record and his willingness to cooperate with the trial. The State’s counsel opposed bail but did not refute the applicant’s submissions. After reviewing the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. and the surrounding facts, the Court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions. The order expressly stated that the bail decision would not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment of the evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged sexual activity with a minor under the POCSO Act.
- Whether the victim’s alleged consent and the possible margin of error in the ossification test affect the bail determination.
- Whether the nature of the offences under Sections 137(2), 65(1) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO warrant denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 183, 65(1)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- consensual relationship
- age of consent
- criminal procedure
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33290 of 2026
Neeraj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suresh Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice to the
informant has been served on 10.9.2026.
2. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant as well
as Sri D.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 137 of 2026, under Sections
137(2), 65(1) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Badalpur, District
Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded
under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she had travelled with the applicant to
several places, stayed with him and is stated to have married him. The
victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be major although her age is 16
years as per ossification test report. In view of the inherent margin of error in
such tests, it is urged that a leverage of two years on the upper side may be
granted to the applicant while determining the age of the victim. The
applicant himself is 26 years old youth. The matter of consensual relation
has been converted to criminal case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
BAIL No. 33290 of 2026
2
29.7.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could
not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby
she seems to be consenting party and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a
case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Neeraj, who is involved in aforementioned case crime
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to
verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 18, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…